Appeal 3355979

The appeal is dismissed.

The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

During my site visit, I observed that works were being undertaken to the appeal dwelling, however it was unclear whether they related to the proposal before me. In any case, I have assessed the appeal scheme on its own merits based on the proposed drawings.

The Council’s reason for refusal refers to policies of the ‘Publication Local Plan’. By reference to the accompanying Officer’s report, the ‘Richmond Publication Local Plan’ is an emerging document. I have not been provided with copies of these emerging policies. In any case, I am also not aware of whether the emerging document has been through examination and, if so, whether there are any unresolved objections or outstanding requirements for modifications. Therefore, I have assessed the proposal against the adopted policies of the development plan before me, these being included in the London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames Local Plan (2018) (LP).

It is clear from the Council’s decision notice and officer report that its substantive concerns relate to the ‘part two-storey front extension’, and not the remainder of the proposal. I have defined the main issue on this basis.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed two-storey front extension on the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal dwelling sits at one end of a terrace of four properties, each with a large two-storey front gable projection. These projections are arranged in balanced pairs with space on either side at the first-floor and roof levels, which distinguishes them as prominent design features. There are other terraces of similar design on this side of [address] and there are some ground-floor level additions to the front of the terraces. However, the repeated pairings of front gable projections across them gives much consistency and order to the street and positively contributes to a locally distinctive character.

Even though it would be slightly set back, the first-floor element of the front extension would uncharacteristically project from the side of the gable projection at the first-floor and roof levels. Its proposed roof form, which would be part-hipped with a flat top, would also intersect awkwardly with the tall, pitched slopes of the host to result in a mismatch of roof forms at the front. As a result, the proposal would differentiate the host terrace from others in the row, detracting from the prominent design of the front gable feature and disrupting the consistent pattern of high level spacing that characterises these terraces. Its incongruous appearance would be visible from the public realm where it would be seen as detrimental to the locally distinctive character.

While the London Borough of [address] Extensions and [name]: Supplementary Planning Document 2015 may not preclude first-floor front and side extensions, the proposed scheme would conflict with guiding principles within this document. In particular, that extensions must be carefully designed in order to avoid the visual confusion that can result when the style of the original house is ignored.

I observed a two-storey front extension to a terraced house with design similarities to the appeal property on the nearby [address]. The full history of this scheme is not before me and so I cannot be certain of the circumstances in which it may have received planning permission. In any case, it is located around a corner, away and from the appeal site and is not seen within its immediate context. Houses on the other side of [address] have different architecture to the appeal dwelling. Therefore, extensions to those particular dwellings also do not justify the proposal’s discordance with the distinctive characteristics of the terraced dwellings that it sits amongst.

I conclude that the proposed two-storey front extension would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area. In that regard, it would be contrary to Policy LP1 (Local Character and [name]) of the LP which seeks to ensure development respects, contributes to and enhances the local environment and character.

The Council has provided a copy of Policy LP28 which relates to ‘Social and [name]. It has not been explained why the requirements of this policy are material to an assessment of character and appearance in respect of a house extension. In any case, whilst Policy LP28 has not been decisive in my conclusion, this does not diminish the conflict identified with Policy LP1.

For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed.